SQL Compare doesn't seem to totally handle dependency

s_solts_solt Posts: 11
edited March 1, 2007 9:14AM in SQL Compare Previous Versions
When I need to apply a huge number of schema changes to a target database, SQL Compare doesn't seem to follow a path which takes account of dependency.

I have a target (eg from MS Access) which has populated tables from which keys, indexes, triggers and views have been stripped (or not yet created). When I synch my development master to this I have to do tables first with keys turned off, then turn keys on, then turn views on, then turn triggers on, then do functions and finally stored procs. Whilst this isn't very demanding, I do feel that SQL compare should a bit cleverer at this bottom up approach. Even with depenencies turned on it doesn't seem to be able to do this reliably.

On the other hand, what it does it is an absolute godsend!

Stephen Solt

Comments

  • Eddie DEddie D Posts: 1,711 Rose Gold 5
    SQL Compare generates the synchronization script in what it thinks to be dependency order. However dependency order can be incorrect on some occasions.

    From your post I suspect that you may have a linked server from your statement that begins "I have a target (eg from MS Access)".

    Can you please confirm if you are a linked server?
    Eddie Davis
    Product Support Engineer
    Redgate Software Ltd
    Email: [email protected]
  • No, the database is an ordinary SQL one. I have my own script that links an access database and then runs through all the tables on the linked server doing:
    SELECT * INTO [sqlTable] FROM [msdb]..[msTable]

    I then attempt to apply all the other SQL objects and functionality from my master.

    Surely you can't compare an SQL database to a linked Access Database!
Sign In or Register to comment.